SUGAMMADEX versus neostigmine after ROCURONIUM continuous infusion in patients undergoing liver transplantation

Background: Rapid neuromuscular block reversal at the end of major abdominal surgery is recommended to avoid any postoperative residual block. To date, no study has evaluated sugammadex performance after rocuronium administration in patients undergoing liver transplantation. This is a randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of assessing the neuromuscular transmission recovery time obtained with sugammadex versus neostigmine after rocuronium induced neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. Methods: The TOF-Watch SX\uae, calibrated and linked to a portable computer equipped with TOF-Watch SX Monitor Software\uae, was used to monitor and record intraoperative neuromuscular block maintained with a continuous infusion of rocuronium. Anaesthetic management was standardized as per our institution's internal protocol. At the end of surgery, neuromuscular moderate block reversal was obtained by administration of 2 mg/kg of sugammadex or 50 mcg/kg of neostigmine (plus 10 mcg/kg of atropine). Results: Data from 41 patients undergoing liver transplantation were analysed. In this population, recovery from neuromuscular block was faster following sugammadex administration than neostigmine administration, with mean times\ub1SD of 9.4 \ub1 4.6 min and 34.6 \ub1 24.9 min, respectively (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Sugammadex is able to reverse neuromuscular block maintained by rocuronium continuous infusion in patients undergoing liver transplantation. The mean reversal time obtained with sugammadex was significantly faster than that for neostigmine. It is important to note that the sugammadex recovery time in this population was found to be considerably longer than in other surgical settings, and should be considered in clinical practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02697929 (registered 3rd March 2016)

Improving IBD diagnosis and monitoring by understanding preanalytical, analytical and biological fecal calprotectin variability

BACKGROUND: The appropriate clinical use of fecal calprotectin (fCal) might be compromised by incomplete harmonization between assays and within- and between-subjects variability. Our aim was to investigate the analytical and biological variability of fCal in order to provide tools for interpreting fCal in the clinical setting. METHODS: Experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of temperature and storage time on fCal. Thirty-nine controls were enrolled to verify biological variability, and a case-control study was conducted on 134 controls and 110 IBD patients to compare the clinical effectiveness of three different fCal assays: ELISA, CLIA and turbidimetry. RESULTS: A 12% decline in fCal levels was observed within 24 h following stool collection irrespective of storage temperature. Samples were unstable following a longer storage time interval at room temperature. Within- and between-subjects fCal biological variability, at 31% and 72% respectively, resulted in a reference change value (RCV) in the region of 100%. fCal sensitivity in distinguishing between controls and IBD patients is satisfactory (68%), and the specificity high (93%) among young (<65 years), but not among older ( 6565 years) subjects (ROC area: 0.584; 95% CI: 0.399-0.769). Among the young, assays have different optimal thresholds (120 \u3bcg/g for ELISA, 50 \u3bcg/g for CLIA and 100 \u3bcg/g for turbidimetry). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a standardized preanalytical protocol for fCal, avoiding storage at room temperature for more than 24 h. Different cutoffs are recommended for different fCal assays. In monitoring, the difference between two consecutive measurements appears clinically significant when higher than 100%, the fCal biological variability-derived RCV

Safety of treatments for inflammatory bowel disease: Clinical practice guidelines of the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD)

Inflammatory bowel diseases are chronic conditions of unknown etiology, showing a growing incidence and prevalence in several countries, including Italy. Although the etiology of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis is unknown, due to the current knowledge regarding their pathogenesis, effective treatment strategies have been developed. Several guidelines are available regarding the efficacy and safety of available drug treatments for inflammatory bowel diseases. Nevertheless, national guidelines provide additional information adapted to local feasibility, costs and legal issues related to the use of the same drugs. These observations prompted the Italian Group for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IG-IBD) to establish Italian guidelines on the safety of currently available treatments for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. These guidelines discuss the use of aminosalicylates, systemic and low bioavailability corticosteroids, antibiotics (metronidazole, ciprofloxacin, rifaximin), thiopurines, methotrexate, cyclosporine A, TNFα antagonists, vedolizumab, and combination therapies. These guidelines are based on current knowledge derived from evidence-based medicine coupled with clinical experience of a national working group